Structural equation modeling of the medical outcome study: Short Form 36 (SF-36)

The factorial validity of the SF-36 was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methods, structural equation modeling (SEM), and multigroup structural equation modeling (MSEM). First, the measurement and structural model of the hypothesized SF-36 was explicated. Second, the model was tested for the validity of a second-order factorial structure, upon evidence of model misfit, determined the best-fitting model, and tested the validity of the best-fitting model on a second random sample from the same population. Third, the best-fitting model was tested for invariance of the factorial structure across race, age, and educational subgroups using MSEM.^ The findings support the second-order factorial structure of the SF-36 as proposed by Ware and Sherbourne (1992). However, the results suggest that: (a) Mental Health and Physical Health covary; (b) general mental health cross-loads onto Physical Health; (c) general health perception loads onto Mental Health instead of Physical Health; (d) many of the error terms are correlated; and (e) the physical function scale is not reliable across these two samples. This hierarchical factor pattern was replicated across both samples of health care workers, suggesting that the post hoc model fitting was not data specific. Subgroup analysis suggests that the physical function scale is not reliable across the "age" or "education" subgroups and that the general mental health scale path from Mental Health is not reliable across the "white/nonwhite" or "education" subgroups.^ The importance of this study is in the use of SEM and MSEM in evaluating sample data from the use of the SF-36. These methods are uniquely suited to the analysis of latent variable structures and are widely used in other fields. The use of latent variable models for self reported outcome measures has become widespread, and should now be applied to medical outcomes research. Invariance testing is superior to mean scores or summary scores when evaluating differences between groups. From a practical, as well as, psychometric perspective, it seems imperative that construct validity research related to the SF-36 establish whether this same hierarchical structure and invariance holds for other populations.^ This project is presented as three articles to be submitted for publication. ^

Comparing the factorial structure, invariance, and predictive validity of transtheoretical model constructs for alcohol use across restricted and unrestricted settings

With substance abuse treatment expanding in prisons and jails, understanding how behavior change interacts with a restricted setting becomes more essential. The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) has been used to understand intentional behavior change in unrestricted settings, however, evidence indicates restrictive settings can affect the measurement and structure of the TTM constructs. The present study examined data from problem drinkers at baseline and end-of-treatment from three studies: (1) Project CARE (n = 187) recruited inmates from a large county jail; (2) Project Check-In (n = 116) recruited inmates from a state prison; (3) Project MATCH, a large multi-site alcohol study had two recruitment arms, aftercare (n = 724 pre-treatment and 650 post-treatment) and outpatient (n = 912 pre-treatment and 844 post-treatment). The analyses were conducted using cross-sectional data to test for non-invariance of measures of the TTM constructs: readiness, confidence, temptation, and processes of change (Structural Equation Modeling, SEM) across restricted and unrestricted settings. Two restricted (jail and aftercare) and one unrestricted group (outpatient) entering treatment and one restricted (prison) and two unrestricted groups (aftercare and outpatient) at end-of-treatment were contrasted. In addition TTM end-of-treatment profiles were tested as predictors of 12 month drinking outcomes (Profile Analysis). Although SEM did not indicate structural differences in the overall TTM construct model across setting types, there were factor structure differences on the confidence and temptation constructs at pre-treatment and in the factor structure of the behavioral processes at the end-of-treatment. For pre-treatment temptation and confidence, differences were found in the social situations factor loadings and in the variance for the confidence and temptation latent factors. For the end-of-treatment behavioral processes, differences across the restricted and unrestricted settings were identified in the counter-conditioning and stimulus control factor loadings. The TTM end-of-treatment profiles were not predictive of drinking outcomes in the prison sample. Both pre and post-treatment differences in structure across setting types involved constructs operationalized with behaviors that are limited for those in restricted settings. These studies suggest the TTM is a viable model for explicating addictive behavior change in restricted settings but calls for modification of subscale items that refer to specific behaviors and caution in interpreting the mean differences across setting types for problem drinkers. ^